Correction: the article by Jutta Jokiranta, " 'Sectarianism' of the Qumran 'Sect':
Sociological Notes", appeared in _Revue de Qumran_ 20/2 (2001), 223-239.
(Thanks to Carla Sulzbach of McGill University for calling this to attention.)
The Jokiranta article is important because the term "sect" is
poorly-defined in common usage. Jokiranta discusses the use
of this term by sociologists and what implications this has
for its use in Qumran studies.
"For analysing the emic [insider] pont of view, we should
set criteria for sectarianism that are available in the texts
and that work as distinguishing between different sociological
stances or different degrees within one stance. So far the
best candidates have been _the tension with socio-cultural
environment_, given that one can specify the scope of analysis,
and the tendency to view oneself as _uniquely legitimate_, or the
tendency to set up _boundaries_ against others." (pp. 238-39)
But these markers of "sect" do not mean that a sect must be out of
power, for a sect can be in power and control the state and the
temple.
"the use of the term 'sect'--if insisted--of a group behind the
Scrolls should be free of presuppositions such as that this
group had a very marginal position, or that it was the most
exreme example of groups in a schismatic relationship with
the temple, or that it protested against the Temple establishment,
or that it was a physically remote introvert commune. These
views, if held on to, should always be result of a thorough
study of texts, not a given set of ideas inherent in the concept
used." (p. 239 n. 48)
In this way there is nothing inherently odd about the notice of
Bar-Nathan cited in my previous post alluding to common knowledge
that Hasmonean rulers such as Hyrcanus II were members of a sect.
("it is known that the Hasmonean rulers, with the exception of
Queen Alexandra, who leaned toward the Pharisees, belonged to
the Sadducee sect...").
And the identity of the pottery at Qumran Period Ib with that of
the Hasmonean palaces at Jericho, brought out in Bar-Nathan's
2002 Jericho volume, means that any argument for
Qumran Ib inhabitants' sectarian nature on grounds of pottery,
miqvehs, etc., applies in the same way to the Hasmonean rulers,
principally Hyrcanus II, who were using the same pottery and
practicing the same customs at Jericho. Therefore, the question of
whether Hyrcanus II was the leading figure of the Qumran sect
during the greatest part of Qumran's Period Ib is hardly
a ludicrous question, but is intended completely seriously.
Other work, notably by James Pasto, has analyzed sects as
groups within "big traditions" that compete for power, and
at any given time, this or that sect can be in power. Therefore
the notion that a sect means not in power is a misunderstanding.
Furthermore, sects in power can preserve texts written at times
before they came to power--and similarly, sects in power can
fall from power and produce texts opposed to the ones they
regard as their usurpers. Rival sects compete to be in power
and may or may not seek to impose their customs more widely.
The texts found in the caves at Qumran indeed reflect the activity
of a sect, but it should not be assumed this sect never held power,
never lost power, or never came to power. Bar-Nathan's analysis of
the common material realia at Qumran Ib and the Hasmonean
palaces at Jericho provides the most striking, prima facie signal
that some old ideas need to be fundamentally reconsidered.
Greg Doudna
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
